New England powder/glades skis

Geoff said:

I have problems with a ski for this category. I'm a big guy and carve my turns. In the trees, I really want something that won't lock the edge so I can crank a skid turn when I need to.

Click to expand...

I'm no expert in this category by any reach, so I really don't understand why you do what you do. I may not look pretty, but I have a lot of fun and stay in control largely due to technique, making up for the fact that I'm not all that physically strong. It sounds like you muscle your way through the trees. I have to understand what kind of wood skiing you do. Are you skiing in areas that have already been pounded out by others? That's the only scenario I can imagine your technique working in. Skidding in powder ain't happening for me unless you're only talking a couple inches of powder.

I had this breakthrough moment that happened after about 7 years of sking - technique trumped brute force. I stopped fighting the mountain and started using it to my every advantage. This is something that will be of more use to me every year I age. I try to avoid skidding because it really takes energy out of me every time I do it. The last thing I want to do is quit early. I have taken various people into the woods with me and found them pooped before me; it's fair to say they are in better physical shape than I, they just are skiing brute force survival mode. It takes time to get it.

I am in heaven if I'm skiing 10+ inches of pow, and in this case, ain't no skidding happening, even if I ever wanted to. I bought the Atura with that in mind, not banging around someone else's hardpack. I'll take 4-5" fresh too, but I don't expect much float at that point. Frankly, the whole reason I go into the woods is for the powder. Trees are almost secondary for me, though I do enjoy their unpredictibility

You might want to re-think your technique if you are skiing trees that have packed snow about them. When I get in a real pickle like that, I may hop a little and roate mid-air to get repositioned into a more life-preserving direction, if you catch my drift. It takes far less energy and elliminates any need to skid.

It's also possible it's not the radius that's killing you but the overall ski stiffness (sorry I'm not gonna go tekkie here, I just like to have fun!) For example, I have some top end GS carver Volkls (my trail "magnets") that will absolutely kick the snot out of me if I take them in the woods. Biggest penalty is a compression turn, when I'm coming out if it. Without sufficient brute strength (not happening for me), I will basically get kicked out of the hole and land on my arse.

There are others here who can give you the technical arguments. I just base my skiing on Zen....

billski said:

I'm no expert in this category by any reach, so I really don't understand why you do what you do. I may not look pretty, but I have a lot of fun and stay in control largely due to technique, making up for the fact that I'm not all that physically strong. It sounds like you muscle your way through the trees.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's exactly the opposite. I typically carve every turn no matter where I am. That's not muscling. That's using the ski to do all the work. When I have to, I roll the ski flat and skid it to shorten up the turn radius. Your self-described "jump turn" technique is muscling it.

As you go wider, it's easier to skid the turn in deeper-heavier snow since you're on top of it instead of down deep. That's why all the tree dogs have gone wide. Watch a snowboarder in the trees, most of them skid just about every turn. It's easy since the board is so wide relative to the length. I'm heavy enough that I'm still not floating even with a 100mm waist ski. With a 30 meter natural turn radius, a ski like that can be a problem in tight trees. As I said, I've skied them a lot in big mountain terrain where stability at speed in powder is the important thing, not being able to crank out a really short radius turn in tight trees. What I'm looking for is a ski with a shorter natural turn radius so I don't have to skid the turn. I suspect reverse camber / rockered is the answer but I have no time on them.

Then I see something like this up on Tramdock for $350 and wonder if I should jump on it...

http://www.backcountryoutlet.com/outlet/K2S0528/K2-Apache-Outlaw-Alpine-Ski.html?avad=1768_a40759b

I don't know....tails are pretty wide .

Lengths: 170cm, 177cm, 184cm
Dimensions: 129 / 92 / 115cm
Turn Radius: [177cm] 19m

RootDKJ said:

Then I see something like this up on Tramdock for $350 and wonder if I should jump on it...

http://www.backcountryoutlet.com/outlet/K2S0528/K2-Apache-Outlaw-Alpine-Ski.html?avad=1768_a40759b

Click to expand...

Root,
Seirra Skis has some good deals on 09 stuff right now: http://www.sierraskis.com/shop/Sales/Mens/skis_0.asp

Glenn said:

Root,
Seirra Skis has some good deals on 09 stuff right now: http://www.sierraskis.com/shop/Sales/Mens/skis_0.asp

Click to expand...

Holy smokes. I wish I'd seen that. Helluva deals on Wateas. :-o

Glenn said:

Root,
Seirra Skis has some good deals on 09 stuff right now: http://www.sierraskis.com/shop/Sales/Mens/skis_0.asp

Click to expand...

Thanks Glenn, I've got Sierra and a few others bookmarked for easy access.

billski said:

Holy smokes. I wish I'd seen that. Helluva deals on Wateas. :-o

Click to expand...

Tell me about it. I sometimes regret checking that site. I keep telling myself I need to save my pennies for a chainsaw...I already have two newish pairs of skis. :razz:

Yeah, saw those prices on Wateas...:-o. They are one ski on my list...but not to purchase yet..;-)...still mulling over some other widths/areas/camber+rocker..

$.01
steve

bigbog said:

Yeah, saw those prices on Wateas...:-o. They are one ski on my list.. I love some floatation, and at 175..can get it from pretty much anything with tails somewhere close to the flex of their shovels..but when visiting outside of home territory...I seem to find every conceivable type of cover in the trees/glades...thus am wanting of a ski with some camber, even though I'm kind of light. Would love to see some of the multiple cambers in skis under ~96mm...they're just easier for us under 6' to roll onto edge..imho.. Just scale down some of those interesting 95+mm skis to ~92 with the same design = instant love...LOL. *..Although with the lengths available...plus tip rocker...I'm finding myself wanting to just demo something really wide, with newer front? sidecut, and camber with some tip rocker.(Think it's been talked at a little while back...)

$.01
steve

Click to expand...

You sound like the perfect customer for a 333
http://www.333skis.com/customers-who-build-their-skis.php

This thread is fun-knee. I'm shopping for a new pow ski, and am trying to decide between something wide in the 130mm+ waist range, or narrower in the 110-120mm range. LOL.

Granted, I do ski 80-90mm waist skis in the trees when it's skied out.

Highway Star said:

This thread is fun-knee. I'm shopping for a new pow ski, and am trying to decide between something wide in the 130mm+ waist range, or narrower in the 110-120mm range. LOL.

Granted, I do ski 80-90mm waist skis in the trees when it's skied out.

Click to expand...

Well not all of us are in the top 30 skiers at Killington :lol:



C'mon you knew that was coming

Highway Star said:

.... I'm shopping for a new pow ski, and am trying to decide between something wide in the 130mm+ waist range, or narrower in the 110-120mm range. LOL.

Granted, I do ski 80-90mm waist skis in the trees when it's skied out.

Click to expand...

But then....What about the 121-130mm slot???, What's up with That!!???......LOL..LOL
Have to agree with you...I'm going to have to just climb onto some skis to find where my comfort level, going edge-to-edge, ends...

Geoff said:

I have problems with a ski for this category. I'm a big guy and carve my turns. In the trees, I really want something that won't lock the edge so I can crank a skid turn when I need to. My 184 cm 86mm waist 20-ish meter turn radius X-Wing Fury is OK most of the time but I've terrified myself a few times in the trees when they wouldn't skid. Most of the powder machines are designed as big mountain GS skis. I own some CMH-edition Volkl Explosiv heli-skiing skis that are like that. I've skied several newer models in the west that have a 30-ish meter natural turn radius. That's not exactly something I want to use for New England bushwhacking. I don't see anything that's 110 wide, around a 180, and a fairly short natural turn radius that you could mount up with an AT setup to ease the slog out of the sidecountry when needed. I'm wondering if the rockered / reverse camber skis are a better approach. I've never had the opportunity to try them.

Click to expand...

I'll repeat here for you what I told billski when he first started this thread. Check out the Gotamas. I have the 07-08 model which has no rocker although this year's model does have some rocker. Gotamas turn easily in the trees for me & might be what you're looking for.

madskier6 said:

I love my Volkl Gotamas for powder & trees in the East. They have no metal in them, float very well & are very maneuverable in the trees. At 105 mm underfoot, they are wider than what most people in this thread have suggested for you but they don't feel that wide to me. They do short turns in the trees very well but yet can also make nice long floaty turns in wide open terrain when you need them to.

They also are very good in the Spring on corn snow. Check them out if you can. They certainly don't ski like they're as wide as 105 mm so don't be freaked out simply by the number.

Click to expand...

madskier6 said:

I'll repeat here for you what I told billski when he first started this thread. Check out the Gotamas. I have the 07-08 model which has no rocker although this year's model does have some rocker. Gotamas turn easily in the trees for me & might be what you're looking for.

Click to expand...

I've skied with madskier6 and can attest that what he says is true; he demonstrated what you can do. Now, whether you have the skills or can grow the skills is up to you....

I probably would have bought the Gotamas if I had the dough.

Geoff said:

I have problems with a ski for this category. I'm a big guy and carve my turns. In the trees, I really want something that won't lock the edge so I can crank a skid turn when I need to. My 184 cm 86mm waist 20-ish meter turn radius X-Wing Fury is OK most of the time but I've terrified myself a few times in the trees when they wouldn't skid. Most of the powder machines are designed as big mountain GS skis. I own some CMH-edition Volkl Explosiv heli-skiing skis that are like that. I've skied several newer models in the west that have a 30-ish meter natural turn radius. That's not exactly something I want to use for New England bushwhacking. I don't see anything that's 110 wide, around a 180, and a fairly short natural turn radius that you could mount up with an AT setup to ease the slog out of the sidecountry when needed. I'm wondering if the rockered / reverse camber skis are a better approach. I've never had the opportunity to try them.

Click to expand...

perhaps you need to re-learn how to skid and slide...its a tough thing to do, I had similar problems when I moved back east and started skiing in the trees more often. (I'm 6'1 ~205-210 and I like to park em and arc em) the other thing that's not helping is the tail on your Fury or your AC50...its pretty wide compared to the waist...which makes it a blast on the firm snow but really works against you when trying to slide them in the woods..almost any ski that has a shorter radius has a wider and hooky tail compared to the waist width. Check out the Armada JJ...camber and sidecut under foot with early rise and tapered tips and tails...it'll carve better than the majority of the rise/rocker skis out there and will slip and slide much better than the Fury. Other than that I'd say find something around 100mm and 180-185cm with a mid 20's radius...not too turny to skid and slide, not a full big mtn ski but wide enough to float yet short enough to play in eastern trees. Fischer Watea 101 in a 182 is one of my new favorite skis...really versatile for a 101mm waist.

I dont see anyone mentioning going with a shorter ski. I know it not what the cool kids ski on but it works. First you rre going to have a shorter turning radius. Second you will be able to get a ski with metal in it so you can ride them after a thaw freeze. Third because of there shortness you will be able to muscle them around in the woods when you need to. I generally ski a 177. I have gone as small as a 152 with a 14 radius. I can follow snoboarders in the trees with those. You feel like a jack rabbit on them.

tjf67 said:

I dont see anyone mentioning going with a shorter ski. I know it not what the cool kids ski on but it works. First you rre going to have a shorter turning radius. Second you will be able to get a ski with metal in it so you can ride them after a thaw freeze. Third because of there shortness you will be able to muscle them around in the woods when you need to. I generally ski a 177. I have gone as small as a 152 with a 14 radius. I can follow snoboarders in the trees with those. You feel like a jack rabbit on them.

Click to expand...

For trees, I agree on not maxing out on ski length. Because our trees here in NE are tighter than out west, I find it easier (and safer) to maneuver shorter skis -- easier to turn, less ski in front and back, easier to aim between tight slots. Of course, you need to strike a balance between float and maneuverability so I would suggest taking the middle road on the issue of ski length. However, I will sacrifice float or chattering on wide open slopes or when the glades open up into a ballroom. I'm willing to make the trade-off for the sake of turnability in tight spaces. In my experience, tree-skiing in the East is more of a stop and go affair rather than just slinking past trees like they were slalom gates.

I basically have 2 glade skis:

B Squad - 174 length, 100 underfoot and stiff
B4 - 168 length, 94 underfoot and soft

Between the two, I favor the B4 in glades because it is more maneuverable in tight spaces and you don't have to throttle it or pay too much attention. The B Squad is great if you want to mach through a glade while paying close attention to what you're doing (no looking around to admire the forest) but its stiffness makes it less nimble -- and that's how I wrapped my leg around a tree once. For this year, I got a 176 S7 (115 underfoot). I can't wait to test it in the glades. Should be fun and it may end up being this year's go to ski. Most people say that the 176 S7 skis short but for our trees out here in the East, I think that may be a good thing.

If you opt to go for a rockered ski, you may want to follow Shane McConkey's advice about length. Basically, they have a smaller effective edge so on fully-rockered skis, go 10 cm longer. On medium rockered skis (like the S7), go 7cm longer. On slightly rockered, go 3 to 5 cm longer. For reference, see his article on last year's Powder gear guide.

bigbog said:

But then....What about the 121-130mm slot???, What's up with That!!???......LOL..LOL
Have to agree with you...I'm going to have to just climb onto some skis to find where my comfort level, going edge-to-edge, ends...

Click to expand...

I already have powder skis 125mm at the waist.

Highway Star said:

I already have powder skis 125mm at the waist.

Click to expand...